Add hydra:Rfc6570Template. #87
Conversation
| "comment": "A templated string with placeholders. The literal's datatype indicates the template syntax; if not specified, hydra:rfc6570Template is assumed.", | ||
| "seeAlso": "hydra:rfc6570Template", | ||
| "domain": "hydra:IriTemplate", | ||
| "range": "rdfs:Literal", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would prefer to not limit this quite generic property hydra:IriTemplate. Can we drop the domain (and possibly also the range) for the time being or use schema.org's counterparts instead?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Agree on dropping the domain.
I strongly recommend to keep the range. All this says is that it's a literal property, and I know only one case where it makes sense to allow both objects and literals as a property's value (rdf:object).
Amended as 6df5dfc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Really? Dropping the range would allow us to support templates which aren’t expressed in the form of a string (which needs to be parsed) but as a “structured value” which might be easier to process in a client.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mwah, I think that's already the job of hydra:IriTemplate itself. The hydra:template property really points to a skeleton. Syntaxes can differ, but they will be strings.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not necessarily I’d say. What can machines do in practice if we add this range that they can't otherwise?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Assume it's a literal property, and thus perform literal operations. Although it's probably mostly handy for humans writing program code against this property.
While I do think properties should at least be either literals or objects, I'm not fighting for this one. Whatever resolution you prefer is fine with me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would like to keep as many doors open as possible to allow usages we haven't anticipated. We can refine this later if necessary. So I'd suggest to drop the range for the time being.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Alright; amended to 7122446.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great! Thanks. So the only remaining question is the capitalization. I’ll send out a straw poll to move this forward.
|
I think we actually never discussed the capitalization of datatypes such as hydra:rfc6570Template. Should we keep it in lowercase or capitalize it as we do with classes, i.e., call it hydra:Rfc6570Template? Most XSD datatypes are lowercase, Schema.org's are all uppercase as are rdf:HTML and rdf:XMLLiteral. Thoughts? Preferences? |
|
I'd be included to keep it as-is; or either |
RubenVerborgh
force-pushed
the
rfc6570template
branch
from
caa80c7
to
6df5dfc
Compare
|
My preference: "RFC6570Template". But I suggest to discuss capitalization conventions in the broader Semantic Web and Linked Data communities. |
RubenVerborgh
force-pushed
the
rfc6570template
branch
from
6df5dfc
to
7122446
Compare
| @@ -50,6 +50,7 @@ | |||
| "TemplatedLink": "hydra:TemplatedLink", | |||
| "IriTemplate": "hydra:IriTemplate", | |||
| "template": "hydra:template", | |||
| "rfc6570Template": "hydra:rfc6570Template", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please update the capitalization
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Amended in 690c4f2.
Implements the proposed resolution for #17.
RubenVerborgh
force-pushed
the
rfc6570template
branch
from
7122446
to
690c4f2
Compare
Add hydra:Rfc6570Template This closes #17
|
Thanks Ruben |
Implements the proposed resolution for #17.